28 February 2025
CONTACT US
Drystone Chambers
35 Bedford Row
London
WC1R 4JH
DX: 332 London/Chancery Lane
CONTACT US
Drystone Chambers
35 Bedford Row
London
WC1R 4JH
DX: 332 London/Chancery Lane
Call 1998
Karen Walton
Call 1998
Before coming to the Bar, Karen began her career at Shelter, working with homeless people in London, before going on to run a women’s refuge. She later managed a pioneering Home Office pilot project based inside Islington Police Station, where she advised victims of domestic violence. This initiative was the first of its kind, placing an independent organisation inside the police service to assist and monitor the police response to domestic violence.
Since joining the Bar, Karen has built a significant practice in the areas of sexual offences and related violence and murder and manslaughter. She is regularly instructed in complex and sensitive cases, that have increasingly involved issues of neurodivergence and acute psychiatric presentation. Karen has been consistently instructed in cases involving very young children, and she has extensive section 28 experience, including the cross-examination of children as young as three years old.
Karen is a Middle Temple vulnerable witness trainer.
She has a particular interest in representing defendants with neurodivergent presentations and is acutely aware of the challenges they face within the current criminal justice system.
Karen has been instructed in section 5 child cruelty cases and cases involving the murder or manslaughter of children, bringing an advanced understanding of the medico-legal issues that often arise in such matters.
Karen is instructed as junior counsel in cases of murder and manslaughter. She is instructed in cases involving young defendants, gang related crime and have a particular interest in mental health issues in this area when sentencing murder/manslaughter offences.
R v J [2023-2025]
Led by Allison Summers K.C. A 16 year old single mother was charged with the murder of her 5-week-old son by administering a lethal dose of paracetamol. A medically complex case, in addition had complexities with the collection and destruction of the forensic evidence that was central to the case. The defence instructed toxicologists, paediatric/neo natalist experts and pathologists.
R v L [2023-2025]
Sole counsel. 16 yrs old charged with attempt murder of his friend. The attack involved serious injuries to the head with a sharp object. The injuries suggested a frenzied attack. The issue in the case was the mental health of the defendant given the close relationship between the defendant and victim. Complex and numerous diagnoses following childhood trauma/ sexual abuse.
R v S [2023-2025]
Led by Claire Davies KC. Murder case, Latvian case where the defendant’s threw body of the deceased in the water. Diatom expert.
R v M [2023-2025]
Led by Allison Summers K.C. Murder case where defendant and victim both neurodivergent. Case involved the killing and dismemberment of the body. The case has required the instruction of experts in the field of autism, neuropsychiatry, pathology and neurology. The issue of diminished responsibility and neuro-divergent presentation complex due to the method and circumstance of the murder and actions after the murder.
R v S [2023-2025]
One punch manslaughter. Newton Hearing that required cross-examination of the Crown’s pathologist.
R v J (2022) D1
Joint Enterprise allegation where the defendants are running cutthroat defences. Cell site material, covert recording material requiring arguments on admissibility and expert evidence. The police in this case authorised covert recordings in the prison transport for some of the defendants. This has required consideration of the admissibility of such material and the instruction of audio experts for D1.
R v D (2022) Matricide
The defendant inflicted multiple stab wounds to the chest area of his mother believing she was possessed by the devil and needed cleansing. This case has involved the instruction of 4 experts on the issue of insanity/ Diminished Responsibility, with a possible issue of drug induced intoxication. Experts have not agreed on the issue diagnosis of the defendant’s mental health. Sensitivity on the issues at trial and final disposal have been complex.
Karen is a vulnerable witness trainer for Middle Temple education / training programme. All practitioners in England and Wales must complete an accredited vulnerable witness training course.
I am part of chambers’ seminar provider practitioner group for this area of law.
R v K [2023-2025]
Gang rape involving 3 defendants and one victim over the course of 11 hours. The offences involved violence above the violence of the rape offences, that were humiliating and degrading. The victim was a Child in Need, for her own protection. S.41 applications, cutthroat defences were run by all defendants. There were extensive social services and police records on the victim. The defence in the case was consent and denial which required robust cross examination of the victim.
R v K [2023-2025]
Sexual offences against adult partner, niece [age 14 yrs], friend of niece [14 yrs], and the supply of drugs to a child in order to facilitate the sexual abuse. The niece was a vulnerable child having been trafficked [sexual] by local gang members. Issues of bad character, social services records and s.41 applications were all significant issues in the case. Hearsay application concerning a deceased witness. The sentence in this case was complex.
R v G [2023-2025]
Allegation of rape. The defendant was an asylum seeker and had been housed in Skegness. The case attracted a lot of media attention from the far right in the area. Issues of consent, intoxication and third-party material.
R v M [2023-2025]
Complex sex case, [NCA]. 5 complainants on the back of the indictment, 3 complainants from the same family of the defendant, starting when complainants [boy and girls] were as young as 7 yrs. The indictment was between 1997 – 2022. First complainant was significantly affected by the extent of the abuse and gave evidence from a secure hospital. There was a high volume of third-party material, telephone, computer evidence, bad character and s.41 applications. Complicated sentencing exercise: the defendant was a child at the time of some of the offences and the issue of dangerousness/campaign of rape].
R v L [2023-2025]
Sexual assault of a child under 13 yrs. [complainant 8 yrs.] Sexual assault [complainant 13 yrs.] s.28 case. In the course of the trial an issue arose concerning a juror and jury bias. A serving police officer had not alerted the court to her role in the child protection unit and knowledge of ABE evidence in the case. Acquitted.
R v G [2023-2025]
Allegation of rape [male on male] following meeting at a club. Acquitted.
R v D [2023-2025]
Allegations of rape and sexual assault by two complainants [adult and child under 10 not known to each other]. Acquitted.
R v L [2023]
Represented ex- Met officer. This was a case that was first investigated by Lincolnshire Police and then became part of a larger investigation by the MPF. The case did not go to trial and the sentence was before Mr Justice Wall.
R v G. (2022) Sexual assault upon an elderly woman [73 yrs.]
by a defendant who was a resident in a secure unit, under s.3 Mental Health Act. The defendant had been on agreed unescorted leave from the Unit. During his release the defendant had a psychotic episode triggered by the use of alcohol and cannabis. The case has required the instruction of two experts for the defence and a further court ordered expert to assess fitness to plead and disposal. The case has required managing expectations of the defendant’s parents who have been tried to support their son’s deteriorating mental health in addition to advising the defendant of the likely disposal. The experts, in this case, have not agreed with the diagnosis and therefore the disposal will in all likelihood be a custodial sentence.
R v S [2021]. Youth Court s.6 Sexual Offences Act 2003. [assault by penetration of a child under 13]
5 years old defendant and uncle to the complainant who was 4 years old at time of allegation. The defendant, diagnosed with autism and the complainant had an educational age 1.5yrs below her birthdate. This case is an example of the danger of trying serious sexual cases in the youth court. The complainant had been interviewed after some delay and having had the opportunity to speak to numerous people. Furthermore, the initial complaint had been made to an inexperienced police officer. The defence instructed an expert to assess the reliability of the complainant. The youth court environment meant the young defendant was in close proximity to his brother [father to the complainant] and the mother when they were being cross examined. This was very stressful to the defendant.
Submissions on the competence of the complainant/s.78 argument on the admissibility of the ABE evidence resulted in the case being dismissed after the prosecution case. DNA expert was instructed in this case.
R v T (2020) Allegations of Assault by penetration x 2 and sexual assault x 6 of a child under 13yrs [9-10yrs] by her stepfather.
The allegations were said to have happened in the child’s home, in her bedroom for over a year [2018-2019]. The prosecution case was that the defendant groomed the child following the start of his relationship with the mother. The first complaint was made to the child’s mother who contacted the NSPCC and then the police. The defendant is of good character. All parties gave evidence in the trial, the child via video link at court. This should have been a protocol case, but for administrative reasons was not.
R v F (2020)
Historical sexual abuse. The defendant worked for The Royal British Legion as a claims assessor. This role involved going to vulnerable people’s houses to carry out the initial assessment for claims for assistance from TRBL. Furniss preyed on women, recently bereaved or where their husbands that had become disabled following service, sexually assaulting them in their homes. The indictment period was between 2013-2017 and numerous women came forward following a press release, after a complaint was made in 2017. The most serious allegation was assault by penetration. There were s.41 issues for two of complainants on the indictment.
R v H (2020)
Sexual assault upon a 94 yr old complainant in her home by a 53yr old Ablanian who had befriended her and offered to look after her garden. Due to issues with the special measures procedures, the complainant was XX in court behind a screen. Issues of competency and extra sensitivity on photos taken of the injuries being shown to the jury and complainant [causation of the bruising in issue].
R v P [2021-2025]
S.5 DVC&V Act 2004, represents mother of twins who were 2 months old at the time of the injuries alleged to have been caused by the parents. Both children presented with number non accidental injuries that are said to have occurred on more than one occasion.
R v R [2021-2025]
Case of child cruelty/ assault against her son, 5 months. Injury caused included subdural haematoma requiring a medically induced coma.
R v S [2021-2025]
Represented mother on s.18 and s.5 DVCV 2004 offences. Numerous incidents of violence. Experts called to give evidence.
Karen is frequently instructed in large drug supply operations and have also been instructed in gang related firearms and violent offences gang related crimes. She has therefore used experts in this area; cell site evidence, gang culture and drill music and admissibility of such evidence and firearms experts.
R v Hashid. [2019] EWCA (Crim) 2018.
Operation Radar (2020)
is an investigation into a conspiracy to supply and distribute high purity class A controlled drugs, namely Cocaine and Heroin, into the Lincolnshire area from South Yorkshire and Essex. Evidence has been gathered using covert observations, ANPR, Telecoms Data, handset/SIM downloads, CCTV and Forensics. This has identified two separate conspiracies to supply class A controlled drugs, one involving South Yorkshire and one involving Essex.
The conspiracy period spans from 1st January 2017 to 28th June 2018 and a total of 23 persons have been charged, some with either the Sheffield or Essex conspiracy and some with both.
R v H (2020/2022) s.18
kidnap case, drug related gang attack on a vulnerable victim. The defendant involved in two unrelated violent attacks on vulnerable victims, where the attacks are filmed and distributed on snapchat to warn people involved in stealing drugs from the dealers.
R v R (2018)
firearms case, drill music admissibility on the issue of propensity to be involved in gang related violence and gun crime.
Karen has particular experience in the law relating to firearms, including possession, armed robbery and murder using a firearm.
R v W (2022) s.16 Firearms, threat to kill case
The allegations arise from a relationship during which the complainant has alleged threats, violence and the use of a rifle, by discharging the rifle towards the complainant. Firearms experts instructed on the issue of whether the rifle is capable of being a lethal weapon.
Karen has represented numerous defendants who have raised issues under the national referral mechanism.
Karen was counsel in the first case in the Crown Court following the modern slavery law coming into force in 2012 [R v Connors]. She represented the female defendant as junior lead counsel. The defendants appealed conviction on grounds that a juror was intimidating the other jurors and exhibited racism towards the defendants. The appeal was heard by the full court in 2012 and considered sentencing in this new area of law.
R v D
Represented women accused stabbing her partner. Contested background of controlling and coercive behaviour. Acquitted.
R v C
Mother accused of arson.
R v L
Female charged with joint enterprise kidnap. Acquitted.
R v T
Female charged with kidnap and false imprisonment.
R v L
Female charged with s.18 [stabbing] against her husband
R v N
Controlling and coercive, s.18 and assault, crown presently assert caused miscarriage.
R v R
Assisting unlawful immigration to a member state.
